> Hardly a new concept, and one that many companies and projects have used for ages.
Certainly. And I don't claim to take credit for any of these concepts (and explicitly say so). The whole point here is to give this idea a name and clear spec so that I can tell people my software uses Semantic Versioning instead of writing it all out every time. It's useful to me and my coworkers, so I decided to share it in case others find it useful as well.
If you can make it popular in Ruby world you can call it whatever you please :-) You should be able to find 10 (and probably 20) year old rants about how technology X does not do version numbering right, and should use Unix shared library standard.
In that case, can I suggest making that clear in the initial section of the document? For example, changing the sentence "As a solution to this problem, I propose a simple set of rules and requirements that dictate how version numbers are assigned and incremented" to something that makes it more clear that you're codifying and naming something which was already a widely recognized scheme.
(I'm also having a hard time believing that we don't already have a name for this system, although I have to admit that a short amount of searching did not come up with one.)
Certainly. And I don't claim to take credit for any of these concepts (and explicitly say so). The whole point here is to give this idea a name and clear spec so that I can tell people my software uses Semantic Versioning instead of writing it all out every time. It's useful to me and my coworkers, so I decided to share it in case others find it useful as well.